Kristofer said: > That could be an interesting way to solve the "indecisive parliament" or
> "frequent government change" problem where these exist. In order to > recall the executive, they have to vote for a new coalition at the same > time. They have kinda that rule in Germany.? The only way to remove their Chancellor is to nominate a replacement. There is a proposed alternative to MMP called Fair majority voting that solves some of its problems.? It has the same single winner + national party proportional vote system.? It has some problems of its own though. http://www.mathaware.org/mam/08/EliminateGerrymandering.pdf Basically, each voter votes for a party and candidate.? In each district, plurality is used to work out the winner (I think approval could also work). The fair number of seats for each party is worked out based on the party vote and a set of multiplers are determined so that each party gets the right number of seats. These multipliers are multiplied by the vote total of each candidate in the party. A party which got to few seats would be given a higher multipler. In effect, it flips the results where the margin of victory was small in order to bring all parties to their proportional totals. I am not sure what the best way to do the task that matrix voting tries to accomplish. Normally positions on the executive are not equal in value. There are free riding issues with selection of major posts.? For example, if you rank your party leader first choice as PM, you use up some of your vote for the other positions.? The solution could be to kick out anyone in the party who doesn't rank their own leader first choice, so all equally share the cost. In Northern Ireland, they use the d'Hondt system for allocating seats on the executive. This gives the larger parties an advantage as they get to pick first.? Also, the largest 2 parties get 1 seat each for free. Another option would be a fair division protocol.? If you had 2 equally sized parties, one party leader could split the executive positions into 2 and then the other party leader could pick one group.? This should mean that both groups have roughly equal value. Alternatively, one of the leaders could give each position a value and the other party leader can pick any group of positions such that the total adds up to less than half. If the first leader undervalues a position, the 2nd leader gets a powerful position for a low cost.? Likewise, if he overvalues a position, the 2nd leader will just not take it, giving him a larger share of the other positions. I am not such if this can be expanded to multiple parties of differing sizes. Also, there is the issue that there would be no coherent national policy on anything.? You could have one minister taking actions which cancel out the actions of another minister. (and both spending money doing it).? Ofc, this creates an incentive for them to work together and find a compromise. Also, budgets could be an issue.? One option would be to share tax income out proportionally. Each member of the legislature could decide what ministries their share is allocated to. Tax cuts/raises are an even bigger issue.? Raphfrk -------------------- Interesting site "what if anyone could modify the laws" www.wikocracy.com
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
